A Secret (2007) User Reviews

not everything works, but when it does it's some riveting, tragic stuff

[Quinoa1984 · 7/10 · 26 October 2008]

One of the big achievements of Un Secret which must be noted is that the director, Claude Miller, doesn't entirely sympathize with his characters or make them out to be all completely good Jews. They're not. This is a film concerning the holocaust that doesn't just make a blanket statement like "Nazis = Bad". No, there were Jews who were in denial, and tried to cloud over the horrible fact that was upon all of Europe, and indeed it's when the film takes its most dissecting view at the flaws of these characters that the veneer is stripped away of completely innocent people being swept up in the maelstrom. While Miller obviously acknowledges and shows the horror of anti-semitism in France (one brief scene in a classroom showing Night and Fog is especially startling) and of the rise of Hitler, he puts his eye on the Grinberg family and what really happened between François Grimbert's parents (name changed when he was a kid) before and during World War 2.

Miller's approach with Un Secret is a tricky one structurally, and it doesn't quite find it's footing until a third of the way into the film. He tries to find a back-and-forth-and-back form of dealing with three periods of time: 1930s, 1950s/1960s and 1985 when everybody is older and it turns to black and white (an opposite touch that works, for a moment), and it's only effective in about the first five minutes. I became wary of those sudden jumps to the 1985 portion of the film, where we see an old Maxime Nathan Grinberg (Patrick Bruel) grieving over the loss of his dog and his son trying to find him, and found it didn't strike anywhere near as well as the 50s scenes. On top of this, after all of the film has ended, that huge chunk of the film with the focus on that first marriage of Grinberg's with Hannah and his very obvious but eventually-acted-on infatuation with Tania (very sexy Cecile de France) was far more effective dramatically and tonally than anything else in the film.

This is not to say Un Secret doesn't cast a very fascinating look into this particular boy's lack of perspective and of his father's determination to compete on a physical level with the Germans, to almost "be" one in a perfectionist sense athletically, and how this one secret is part of scarred memory, attachment to one's faith and religion and who they are, and love and lust. The cast is generally excellent, with Bruel, De France and Sagnier delivering work with nuance and exquisite, painful emotions that resonate from one into the next scene (Sagnier is so good she gets us to feel repulsed, or at least taken completely aback, by what she does while in hiding). And the moods of joy and despair in a Jewish family circa 1930s and 1940s- and the subsequent self-imposed shame of people in Europe even after the war ended- is captured with some real power and accuracy.

But Miller also can't completely fix together his narrative; he feels the need to jump around as if it will create a really intriguing rhythm, where if he stepped back and told it without sudden jumps or surreal bits like the "brother" in the boy's bedroom at night the film would benefit. There is also a lack of a real resolution; the 1985 scene just didn't cut it for me as far as an unspoken father/son thing, and despite it sounding conventional a confrontation of the boy to his parents might have brought something more interesting than the uneven subtlety of the ending. A lot of this is so hearth-breaking in its true dimensions and probing of the subject that the only real disappointment is how it doesn't fell... complete with itself.

Memories of the French Jewish experience

[Chris Knipp · 8/10 · 14 February 2008]

This film about a Jewish family that hides some of its most devastating personal Holocaust losses after the end of the Occupation has relative mainstream appeal. As I've noted earlier, Variety predicted "good, but unexciting" prospects for a US release. While the film did relatively well in France considering the high US market share these days, that means it ranked 20th for box office there (according to ScreenDaily.com). A Secret/Un Secret tells the story of a boy named Francois (Valentin Vigourt at 7, Quentin Dubois at 14, Matthieu Amalric as a grown man in the 1980's--who now is a therapist who treats shy, withdrawn boys like himself when young). Growing up in the Fifties, Francois has a mother, Tania Grimbert (Cecile de France) who's beautiful and athletic and a great diver, while he's studious and frail and afraid of the water and of strangers. As a seven-year-old Francois is comforted and (literally) massaged and given vitamin shots by Louise (Julie Depardieu), an old friend of the family. Francois is the despair of his father, Maxime Grimbert (Patrick Bruel), who wants him to do gymnastics and be athletic.

Francois, like many kids, has an imaginary playmate and in this case this phantom companion is a kind of superior doppelganger, a brother who is good at sports, lively, cheerful, outgoing: everything he doesn't seem to be.

In the framing present-time sequences, in black and white, where Francois is Amalric, he meets with Louise and gets a series of revelations about hidden secrets which in part at least he has perhaps by now long suspected. Events a decade before his birth are unveiled, beginning in the early Thirties and leading up to and beyond the War. Amalric's voice-over narrates introductions to these sequences. He learns that his father Maxime had another wife, Hannah (Ludivine Sagnier), a wan and ultimately gloomy individual (she is always seen without makeup, in an unflattering hairdo, smoking) who yet has a robust baby boy, Simon (Orlando Nicoletti). And Simon is the sprightly little gymnast Maxime wanted.

The body of the film is what happens when the War comes and France comes under Nazi occupation. A Secret isn't an extremely complicated story but it is a paradoxical one, with parallels and contrasts that may strain credulity. No doubt its central points are eternally valid: the perversions and horrors of the Holocaust, the need of Jews present in Europe at that time to forget in order to move on. The movie is composed of short scenes that block in personalities, situations, and events schematically. It's particularly heavy-handed in lining up Tania to be Maxime's future mate after Hannah is gone by having him ogling her constantly at all times, when she is married to Robert (Robert Plagnol), who is conveniently taken to Breslau as a soldier early in the war: Maxime is ogling no one but Tania even all during his own wedding. Is this necessary? Hardly, but it does set things up clearly in visual terms, through telegraphic closeups and editing.

All this schematic stuff undoubtedly works well with viewers on a conventional level, and the production values are good, the scenes richly worked out. It's fun to watch the Fifties bathing scene, which introduces the young Francois as a fish out of mainstream water. Cecile de France is lovely to look at; I'm sorry I said she looked "stolid" and "overly athletic": she's just grand. And no doubt Maxime's constant cruising of Tania is indeed meant to be one of the things that undermines the wilted Hannah's morale. It's not certain that Tania is ideally cast. Tania/Cecile is meant to be a "liver" and a winner, as Hannah is not. But all this is telegraphed so blatantly--as is the contrast between Francois and Simon. Could it not have been made a little more subtle?

Nothing can change the power of the devastating moment when Tania and Simon's doom is sealed. It's horrible, it's manipulative (because necessary to the story but not sufficiently motivated), but it's nonetheless memorable. And everything that follows has an emotionality and warmth that the preceding two thirds of the film lacked. The grown up Francois gets a call and rushes him to his aged father, Maxme, who's sitting desolate on a Paris bench after he's let his dog run free on a walk and it's led to the animal's death. Maxime, Francois narrates in voice-over, has recovered from the loss of Simon and Hannah, but he is left inconsolable by the death of his dog. This is how his survivor guilt reemerges. No wonder Francois later has the inspiration of investigating his past and writing about it while visiting a pet cemetery, with his sister, at the aristocratic country house where his father and Tania and Louise were given refuge during the war.

Note: the film is based on a novel by Philippe Grimbert. Some of the French reviews note the difficulty of embodying this powerful work in a film. The reviews are solidly favorable, if few are ecstatic. Once again Miller has done something that's worth watching, but not extraordinary. It's a strong cast, if you accept the workmanlike Gruel in his pivotal role.

Good Holocaust history; mediocre family drama

[Turfseer · 6/10 · 9 March 2008]

Saw this film at Lincoln Center with the director, Claude Miller, in attendance. During a question and answer session he stated that he's always asked the same question at these sessions--that is, why did he use color for the scenes in the past and an off gray for the scenes that are supposed to take place in the present (the present being 1985, the time when the story is narrated by the main character). Miller replied that he simply needed a way to distinguish between the past and the present. Personally I was uneasy with the director's decision to reverse the traditional use of color to connote the past; others may feel differently.

A Secret is told in a series of flashbacks that cover three time periods. The narrator is the grown up son telling the story of his family in 1985. At the beginning the elderly father has disappeared after the family dog is killed by a car. The son recalls his difficult childhood in 1955; the father expected him to be a vigorous athlete but as a child he's sickly. Then we flash back further to learn that the father was married to another woman during the time when the Nazis occupied France. The first son wins awards as a child athlete and the father is very proud of him. Slowly a family secret is revealed--the man's father and his family were originally Jewish. The father escapes to a rural area away from the Nazi occupation. The mother and son are expected to join him but ends up revealing her Jewish identity to gendarmes just before she is about to cross the border into the non- occupied area of France.

The first wife is jealous of his brother's wife (who is now the mother of the narrator son in the later scenes). The first wife learns earlier on that her husband has been having an affair with the sister-in-law; she no longer feels she can join her husband since she believes he's no longer in love with her. The first wife is willing to sacrifice herself and her son out of either anger of depression (or both).

All this is supposedly based on a true family story. The most compelling part of the film are the scenes in the early 40s where the Jewish families must deal with the gradual erosion of their liberties, discrimination against them and eventual arrest and deportation by the French authorities who are acting in concert with the Germans. The extent of the collaboration of the French populace is not glossed over and Miller does an excellent job in creating the atmosphere of those times. It's a cautionary tale about the dangers of Fascism.

The other part of the film, the family drama, simply isn't as compelling. Once the 'secret' is revealed, one realizes that it's not much of a secret at all. There were a fair number of Jews who had to convert to Christianity in order to save themselves during the war and their deep fears of being singled out by Fascists in the future kept them from converting back, even long after the war. The big hook here is of course the decision of the first wife not to join the husband. Her reasons are never explored and we're left to speculate what caused her to allow herself and her son to be arrested. The first wife's decision is supposed to be deeply shocking but the revelation doesn't feel like the twist ending the director was hoping for.

The very fact that we never really find out what the first wife's motives were is unsatisfying (at the same time one can easily speculate that she became unhinged out of jealousy). One wonders how the narrator son (who later ironically becomes a child psychologist treating autistic children) ends up so well adjusted given his traumatic childhood. It's unclear what happens to the mother--at a certain point, the narrator indicates the father left her after she suffers a stroke (when this happens is also unclear). When all is said and done, A Secret is a mixed bag but worthwhile seeing to gain some insight concerning the Holocaust.

Not really a secret

[kosmasp · 6/10 · 18 August 2008]

Since the structure of the movie, works with many flashbacks, there is not a big surprise in the end. The acting is more than decent (even I recognize many french actors and I'm not really familiar with most of them) and the story deserves to be told. Although I'm not sure, if it really is based on a true story, it's still a gripping story ... unfortunately, this movie does underscore many things. And while sometimes it might work out to underplay a few things, it doesn't work in the favor of the movie ...

I watched it with another person and he kind of despised the movie. He thought the theme was nice, but was unhappy with the handling of that subject matter. I do agree with him to some degree, but I think it would be unfair to the actors and the (overall) story to give it a lesser rating ...

Secrets And Truths

[writers_reign · 7/10 · 9 May 2008]

This is certainly head and shoulders above Miller's last movie, La Petite Lili, in which he thought he was better than Chekhov and generally stank up the screen. Apparently this is also an adaptation, this time of a modern novel which I haven't read so I don't take it so personally. Another - and better - French director, Louis Malle, also had a crack at Chekhov but Vanya On 42nd Street was content to just film the original text rather than rewrite it. Here, with the help of a mainly fine cast, Patrick Bruehl, Mathieu Almaric, Cecile de France, Julie Depardieu, he tackles a multi-generational tale that begins in the mid thirties with a Holocaust waiting in the wings and ends in the eighties with resolution of a sort. Cecile de France makes an effortless transformation from her usual ingenue to a mature woman but Miller erred in casting Ludo Sagnier and expecting her to act with her clothes on (her naked love scenes in Lili had been central to the wrecking of Chekhov). It has art house written all over it, of course, but it no worse for that. If slow, ponderous, unravelling is your thing you could do far worse than this and my only caveat is that Mathieu Almaric is not given enough to do.

Excellent portrayal of love, loss and rejection

[gareth-hughes · 10/10 · 23 October 2007]

This is a complex, moving and beautifully realised film by Miller. The themes of rejection, love, loss and guilt are explored in a complex narrative structure where ultimately the guilt of one man and the rejection felt by one woman are mirrored in the guilt of the French nation in their rejection and abandonment of their Jewish fellow countrymen.

Lush cinematography, precise mise en scene and excellent performances including Ludivine Sagnier cast against type as the object of non-desire make for a totally satisfying cinematic experience. Perhaps we could have done without the coda in Laval's pet cemetery but by that stage I and the rest of the audience were emotionally drained. Go see.

Some of us will always have Paris

[antcol8 · 7/10 · 5 September 2008]

What's the difference between a film and a movie? Or is there one? Well, some works are definitely both...Hitchcock, Sirk...but, what's my point? Oh, yeah...this is a MOVIE. Like, well maybe I've seen too much Ozu or something, but I think ONE glance from Patrick towards Cecile ON HIS WEDDING DAY would've really made the point - would've made the point a lot better than it was made. From that moment on, I was in danger of checking out. If I ever see this film again, I promise to count how many times he checks HER out in that one poor sequence. It's at least 20 times - ridiculous.I don't like having my cinephilia insulted in this way. And the Kitsch of it is, from that moment on, we are launched into some kind of weird Freudian/Lacanian scenario where The Return of the Repressed meets The Primal Scene. Every time we see Tania's taut buttocks in that clingy bathing suit that covers her va-va-voom body, every time we are thrown back into that most Portnoy-ish of Selfhating Wet Dreams, where the Blond Shiksa is a Full-Blooded Jewess, we both can't wait for Mommy to die so that we can be together with the Babe, and we hate ourselves for feeling like this. Guilt - yummy! It takes away the feeling of prurience and lays "high seriousness" on top of it - one of the classic Kitsch layer cakes. So why the Seven rating? Because if you leave out the fact that Miller really doesn't trust his viewers to think for themselves, there is something powerful in this film, the way it links Frenchness and Holocaust Denial, the way it shows how Jewishness is such a complex construction which conflates Race, Religion and Culture. But careful which films you quote if you're not on their level: Grand Illusion is name-checked, bits of Night and Fog are shown, and isn't the Bal Musette after the Klezmer Wedding (a really nice musical transition, by the way) shot at the same hall as the the famous Lesbian Dance in The Conformist? It sure looks like it. Pardon My French, but Vive La Difference!

One of the best

[Felix-28 · 9/10 · 12 March 2008]

Well, I'm very definitely with those who praise this film. I think it's quite excellent.

It has many qualities that I value. To begin with, the narrative is entirely believable. I particularly liked the fact that one of the principal characters was a Jew who didn't didn't care much about being a Jew and felt no need to proclaim his Jewishness to the world: there are many Jews like that and they are as entitled to respect as a non-practising Christian or Muslim or anyone else. The knowledge of the son that he's a disappointment to his father rang true. The acceptance by some Jews of the Nazi laws, and the belief of those same Jews that if they obey the laws, wear the star, stay away from public swimming pools, then they will be all right. The desire of those who live through the holocaust to put it behind them rather than dwell on it.

I like its directness and understatement. There are no histrionics. The story is told; the audience observes and draws its own conclusions.

The acting and directing are uniformly outstanding. I'd never had much time for Cécile de France, but she is perfect in this rôle. Patrick Bruel as the athletic father is just as good, and Julie Dépardieu as the family friend and the three actors who play the son at different times of his life are up there too; in fact, it's unfair to leave anyone out.

The director Claude Miller deserves special mention. I haven't seen any of his other films, but I'll look out for him from now on. He handles the film with absolute confidence, never obtruding, but conveying every nuance without faltering. This is a classic example of how simplicity, directness and lack of elaboration can add to the power of a story.

This film deserves much more than it's current user rating of 6.7.

Deeply Disturbed Mother Commits Serious Indiscretion and Dooms Self & Young Son To Death

[Aristides-2 · 3/10 · 2 April 2011]

Though the story told is autobiographical, and tragic, you don't have to care much at all for a couple of the main characters. I found two reasons to loath this movie: 1. The first wife, Tania, so deeply disturbed when she learns of her husband Maxime's attraction to her sister-in-law Hannah, violates her deepest maternal instincts, i.e. to protect her young son Simon, by masochistically revealing herself to be a Jew to the Vichy police (they subsequently perish in an extermination camp).....and only a mile away from safety! Grotesque human behavior by all three of these adults makes them impossible to relate to. 2. Casting anomalies: Jumping back and forth over decades the actors cast look the same age most, if not all of the time. Which confuses the viewer repeatedly about chronology. ( I suppose in the case of the too-old-to- begin-with Patrick Bruel (Maxime), the director just accepted this reality while looking at dailies by rationalizing, "If the audience is going to get hung up over his looking too old then they're not really into the story!" Oh yeah director Miller: Bruel was too old looking in 1937 and looking exactly the same....too old.....twenty years later!) Overall conclusion: This movie reduced the horror of the French-Jewish experience of the Holocaust to a sordid love triangle. Yuch!

A touching film; I have summarized the film for those who wish to know more before seeing it

[kelliawest · 9/10 · 30 October 2007]

I didn't know exactly what to expect when I went to see this film, so I arrived with an open mind. Upon leaving, I was pleasantly surprised by how this film had reached in and grabbed me, leaving me thinking about it for the rest of the evening. The film revolves around François, and takes place over a number of decades, starting in the 1950's and fast-forwarding at certain parts to the 1980's. François in the 1950's is a young boy, a bit shy, who doesn't seem to meet the expectations of his gymnast father, Maxime, here played by French singer/actor Patrick Bruel. We can see that the relationship between François and Maxime is strained, and we can sense that even the relationship between Maxime and Tania (François' mother, played by the superb Cecile de France) is not exactly "normal." François, an only child, has an imaginary friend, or should I say an "imaginary brother." This brother is stronger, faster, better than François, and leaves François frequently daydreaming about him. This leads us to the "secret" which the film title hints at. At this point we know that things in general aren't "right", that something has happened that François doesn't know about, but feels. Finally, at the age of 15, a kindly neighbor who has known Maxime and Tania for many years, lets François in on the "secret" and we go back in time 20 years. In the mid 1930's, Maxime has married a beautiful young woman named Hannah and has a big, spectacular Jewish wedding. At this point, Hannah introduces Maxime to her brother Robert and Robert's wife Tania. Life is good and Hannah and Maxime have a son, Simon. Over the 5 or 6 years that follow, World War II unravels and France slowly becomes occupied. French Jew's start wearing the Star of David on their clothing, but Maxime refuses to wear one. This causes an uproar in the family as he is accused of denying his Jewish faith. Both Robert and Maxime are sent away to fight in the war, and whereas Maxime makes it back, Robert is still stuck at war. Not to give away the climax of the film, I will briefly summarize the next part. Maxime and part of his family decide to obtain false papers and head to unoccupied France, with the intention of the rest of the family (Hannah, Simon, etc) later... I will not give away the rest of what happens next. It is at this point in the film that François (at age 15) understands the importance of the famous family "secret" and begins to understand his life, why his parents are how they are, why he is even alive. The flash-forwarding to the 1980's at different points in the film show us a grown François, and an even older Maxime and Tania. They give us a better understanding of the characters, a more complete aspect of the whole story. As I mentioned, the film is incredibly touching. The film is shrouded in a profound sadness that can be felt from the beginning, but for just cause. It is not until François learns this secret that he can even begin to understand his existence. Overall great acting. I have not read the book, and as books are usually better than the movie, I cannot make a comparison. But I do believe an honest effort was made to bring the story to life. I definitely recommend this film.

It's not really a secret that french academic movies bore its spectators to death

[moimoichan6 · 3/10 · 21 October 2007]

I was really expecting more from this adaptation of Grimbert's novel by Claude Miller. The director showed us with his last movie, "La Petite Lili" that he was able to take an important literary text (that was "The Seagull" from Tchekhov)and to transform it into an interesting cinematographic experience. But with this secret, Miller only manages to give a boring and literal (even if he takes some liberty from the book) adaptation without any relief.

If the structure of the film, all in flash-back and time traveling, gives a modern aspect to the movie, it's merely an illusion, and a useless style effect, for the movie rapidly gives this artifice away and finally adopts a linear form. The story is the one of a young boy who learns in the 50's the secret story of his family during WWII. His family was Jew and it hasn't been easy for them during the french occupation by the German. This last sentence seems ridiculous, but it's the key to the secret of the movie ! That's how much you will learn while watching it.

The movie is also lame concerning the individual story of the child that learns the story of his family. If you have the feeling this could be the real subject of the movie during the first minutes of the film, that shows a a man (Mathieu Amalric) remembering his child wood where he learns this story, the consequences of such a discovery are eluded in the movie. And the scenes with Amalric, that seems to come from another french film d'auteur, with it's Garrel Balck and white look, are completely useless. You just get to see an old maked-up Patrick Bruel and Cecile De France in a "Once upon a time in America"'s style, but all I can say is that Claude Miller isn't Sergio Leone, and that this flash-forward effect is close to ridiculous.

The narrative structure, the mise en scene, the themes, the reconstitution, and the story of the movie are so predictable, academical and uninteresting, that the spectator attention, close to fall in beautifuler dreams, is merely kept alive by the presence of two good french actress : Ludivine Sagnier and especially Cecile De France. They're the only reason to watch this movie 'till the end and they're the one ones to bring some interest to this mediocre adaptation.

This is an excellent movie

[crazyf_ker · 10/10 · 25 May 2008]

It's worth noting, if you have read other comments, that the people who have bad mouthed it actually had no idea what was going on, why things happened and who was who. I find this "solidly" irritating.

This movie was great from start to finish. Tania is married to Robert. Robert is Hannah's brother. So Tania and Hannah are sisterS-in-law. From first meeting, Maxime is mesmerized by Tania and who wouldn't be. As Louise says "... I find her desirable ...". Cécile De France is superbly cast as Tania and every credit to the film makers for making her that object of desire in every scene. This alone makes the movie a delicious treat. I have not read the book. The movie is a tragedy of war and a masterpiece of the senses.

Spoilers follow: Robert is sexy enough himself, there is no reason to suspect that Tania would ever wander. Robert is sent to a POW camp early on, so WE know he's not likely coming back ... but THEY do not. Hannah has seen the way Maxime looks at Tania but Tania makes it perfectly clear to Maxime that nothing is going to happen between them. However, Hannah doesn't know this. Hannah is a young mother with quite normal insecurities and a little irrational jealousy. Hard to avoid these feelings when you see Cécile in this movie. Any woman would be jealous. Maxime's devotion to his wife and son are never in question over his simple obsession with Tania. He loves his wife, he lusts after Tania.

Maxime also alienates Hannah's parents by refusing to register as a Jew. Hannah goes behind Maxime's back and registers herself.

The tragedy lies in Hannah's doubts and subsequent anger over what she "thinks" Maxime "feels" for Tania. This is compounded when her parents are transported.

When she finds out that Tania will also be in their hiding place, she becomes even more frustrated at her position and doesn't want to leave Paris. Her act of "outing" herself as a Jew is simple rebellion and disobedience directed at Maxime. Nothing more. Herein lies the awful tragedy of the war. The major point to remember here is that as you sit watching this unfold, YOU know immediately what will happen to her and Simon, but she did not. The full horror or the holocaust was not revealed until after liberation so none of these people can know their fate in reality. At worst, she probably thought she would meet up with her parents somewhere else. At best she was showing Maxime she would do as she pleased.

This tragedy was the highlight of the movie for me. It was such a simple act of disobedience that changed everyone's lives forever.

It is a haunting wonderful film that leaves you thinking about it long after it has finished.

A real surprise

[hendersonhall · 10/10 · 27 June 2009]

Having read the comments on this site, after having heard a friend (whose opinions aren't always reliable) say I must see it, I expected a marginally good picture when I rented the DVD. OK, I thought, another personal story about French and German anti-Semitism in WW II. This time my friend was right! A Secret was a knockout. It hit home and revived childhood memories. And it's as much or more about pre-WW II & post-WW II as it is about during. I won't repeat what others have rightly said about the uniformly excellent acting or the directing or the photography, etc. Among the things that hit home to me were the child's (or children's) point of view--SO on target--and the very different types of Jews portrayed in this film. Even though I "knew" (intuited) what would happen to some characters, what actually did happen was better than my imaginings. Its reference to the big illusion (La grande illusion) was apt (as well as the one character who actually saw it). More than one illusion is shattered by this pic, which like my friend I highly recommend.

The central premise of the movie is idiotic.

[gg-742-688109 · 4/10 · 20 July 2013]

The heart of the story is fatally flawed by an idiotic premise which negates an otherwise decent movie. We are told a mother betrays her son to the Nazis -- an act of lunacy or depravity which is not explained or supported by the rest of the movie.

The movie is presented as a series of flashbacks. These flashbacks jump back and forth among several different time periods; they seem more like gimmicks than useful tools for telling the story. A flashback to one previous time should have been enough to show the family secret.

Watching this movie leaves one with the feeling that the director and writer are obtuse or that they think the audience are.

Just Beautiful

[whistlerspa · 9/10 · 27 May 2011]

Beautifully filmed - stunning screenplay A simple story beautifully acted by the entire cast.

Stunningly beautiful female leads as well.

This film gets my vote as one of the best foreign language films I've seen. It can be a little slow moving in parts so it's a film that you want to watch when you are not in any hurry, just sit back and enjoy.

The story revolves around Francois growing up in 50's Paris who find out a family secret. It jumps from the 30's - 80's in telling the story and I thought it a nice touch filming the 80's section in black and white. Don't miss if you like good well acted drama.

Longing and Loving and the Precipice of War

[gradyharp · 10/10 · 2 October 2008]

Claude Miller has created one of the more challenging and intensely human dramas about World War II in his film UN SECRET (A SECRET). Though one of many stories about the plight of Jews during the events that lead up to and exploded into WW II, Miller's story is less about the cruel destiny of the Jews in Hitler's plundering of Europe than it is a study of a few individuals who struggled with their identity in the face of probable extermination. Based on a true story in Phillippe Grimbert's novel by the same name, UN SECRET gracefully and artistically draws the viewer into the psyche of the narrator François Grimbert (played at ages 7, 14 and 37 by Valentin Vigourt, Quentin Dubuis, and Matthew Almaric) whose relationship to his father Maxime (Patrick Bruel) has always been strained. The story winds from contemporary time, to the period in France before WW II, through the horrors of the Halocaust, and the years of rebuilding following the war. Maxime 'Grinberg' (Patrick Bruel) marries Hannah (Ludvine Sagnier) in a beautiful Jewish wedding. Hannah's brother is married to a brilliant athlete Tania (Cecile De France) and even at the wedding the equally athletic Maxime has eyes for Tania. All possible conflicts seem to diminish when Maxime and Hannah have a son, Simon (Orlando Nicoletti) who develops into a naturally gifted athlete – the joy of Maxime's life. As WW II approaches the Jews of Paris are instructed to wear their yellow Star of David patches, and while Hannah feels pride in her race, Maxime refuses to be 'labeled' and defies the ruling. When the SS come to transport Jews out of Paris, Hannah and Simon are removed to a camp while Maxime manages to stay in Paris with a new French name. Popular as a fashion model and designer, Tania is able to stay unnoticed as a Jew also, but her husband is off to war and extermination. Maxime and Tania learn of their families' demise and bond, eventually marrying using French names (Grimberg becomes Grimbert), join the Catholic Church and have a son – François – who is nothing like Simon nor does he know of his father's rejection of him as a poor comparison to the perfect Simon But as the years pass François discovers his family's past and a reconciliation with his Jewish heritage confronts him. How the maturing François ultimately relates to his distant father brings closure to the story. The cast is excellent, including some of the lesser roles - especially the ever-present Louise (Julie Depardieu) - played by gifted actors. Claude Miller's recreation of time lapses is successfully highlighted by interchanging black and white with color photography (by cinematographer Gérard de Battista) and the changing moods of the story are greatly enhanced by the musical score by Zibigniew Preisner. UN SECRET, then, is a stunning work that explains many aspects of the varying responses of Jews to that horrid period of history designed by Hitler. It is a deeply satisfying and profoundly moving film. Highly recommended.

Finding Out The Painful Truth

[Seamus2829 · 9/10 · 3 February 2009]

Director Claude Miller ('The Little Thief')has gone and crafted a fine, taut,heartbreaking tale of repression,tragedy & truth,leading to closure. 'A Secret',adapted from the novel of the same name by author Phiiippe Grimbert,concerns a man,Francois,who as a young boy,had the feeling that he had an older brother. When he couldn't get a straight answer from his tight lipped family,he goes on a search for the truth & gets more than he bargained for. The film boasts of a fine cast,including Julie Depardieu,daughter of actor Gerard Depardieu,and the always welcome Ludivine Sagnier (Swimming Pool). The story's pace may be a bit slow for most Western viewers,but waiting it out will be well worth it,for the final solution. The film's visual look is a treat for the eye (with the present day sequences filmed in black & white, and the scenes that take place in the past which were filmed in colour,which may remind some viewers of 'Les Violins Du Bal'). Films like this deserve far better than they get (unlike any & all of the latest cine crapola that feature Pauly Shore or Adam Sandler). No rating,but contains nudity,sexual situations & some gruesome images of concentration camps that would be disturbing to youngsters under 15.

One of the better French films but lacks emotional impact

[freebird-64 · 8/10 · 14 June 2009]

I was able to see to see this film as part of a recent festival of French films shown at Cannes. It was one of the better French movies that I've seen but somehow it lacks the emotional impact to make it a truly outstanding film.

Un Secret is about Francois, who gradually learns about his family's secret history, dating back to World War II, that continues to haunt his parents and himself even up to the present. The director expresses this idea visually by shooting the present day scenes in black and white and the flashback scenes in color.

The plot of Un Secret is well-laid out and comes together satisfyingly enough. I have to admit that one problem I had with the film was that I had some problems following the complicated family relationships among the characters, but once you get past that, the way the story unfolds is ultimately rewarding.

The problem I had with the film, which may just be my problem, is that the film lacks emotional impact. The film'e emotions are understated and, while this is not necessarily a bad thing, prevents it from becoming truly memorable.

Still, its one of the better recent French films and you should see it if you get the chance.

What You Don't Know Can Hurt You

[robert-temple-1 · 10/10 · 13 August 2009]

Claude Miller is one of the finest of modern French directors, and this film is one of his best. As many others have said before me, 'Un Secret' ('A Secret') verges on perfection in every way. The direction, the actors, the novel, the script, are all superb. The film is based upon a best-selling novel by Philippe Grimbert, which tells what is apparently a true story, of a revelation about what really happened in wartime, as experienced by a son who has never been told the truth. The story takes places at various times and has flashbacks and flash-forwards. The savage oppression of the Vichy Regime in France is here shown in all its fascist relentlessness: French policemen picking up French citizens to send them off to be gassed in Germany! Children too! And thereby hangs the tale: the 'imaginary brother' whom the lead character used to play with in his imagination when he was a child is someone he later discovers really existed, and really was his older brother so that it must have been a psychic impression. But the older brother was sent off to his death, with his mother, and a conspiracy of silence about the true events became a family tradition. The stately and athletic figure of the ironically named Cecile de France (ironical because she was born not in France but in Belgium) wafts through this film continually, and to call her redolent with vibrant beauty and possessor of a kind of 'ideal Aryan woman' quality would be an understatement. She positively exudes allure, in the way that some fruit trees drip sap. Ludivine Sagnier, who used to be a child actress, but has long since matured successfully, does an incredibly sensitive job of portraying the intangible hysteria and willfulness of a young Jewish woman who makes a false decision at a moment of crisis during the War, at a point when she has become irrationally defiant and slightly unhinged. This is a perfectly judged film, which must have meant a lot to the director (who wrote the script himself), and everyone involved seems to have contributed his or her best to bring this tragic tale to life in an unforgettable manner.

Not your average Holocaust film.

[lastliberal · 8/10 · 11 March 2009]

All François knew was that his father wasn't overly fond of him. Part of it may have been because he wasn't as athletic as his parents. His father would get upset when he talked of an imaginary "brother." No one talked of the family secret until he was 14 and Louise (Julie Depardieu) decided he should know.

She tells him of life during WWII, and his father's first wife, and his son. Unbeknownst to him, they were all Jews, even though his father never practiced his faith. During the war they escaped France. All except his wife (Ludivine Sagnier) and son. She decided to demonstrate her independence at the wrong time. Of course, she was also upset that her husband (Patrick Bruel) couldn't keep his eyes off her brother's wife (Cécile De France). Who could? What happened didn't become known until François (Mathieu Amalric) was older. We, the audience knew what was going to happen, but the Jews at the time had no clue.

Julie Depardieu really excelled in this engrossing tale. Cécile De France was also very good. It was a brilliant work of art.

"The Unleashed Dog that died "

[chazz46-2 · 8/10 · 19 September 2009]

SPOILER: A recurring thought: Old Maxime, who had accepted the loss of his first son and wife, was inconsolable about losing his dog (because he chose to walk the dog without a leash and it was run over), and the dog's death served to displace all of the angst he had repressed from similar earlier matrimonial irresponsibility. Claude Miller emphasized this over and over and over. The persistent eying of Tania at his own wedding and many subsequent scenes left no doubt that Maxime should have been a prime candidate for self-flagellation. Since he never demonstrated subsequent shame or regret, humanity gets to at least see how such guilt can still enter into one's life even if only the pangs of guilt through mindless displacement in the form of the dog incident.

Maybe this movie should be an iconic cinema graphic reference for wandering spouses to consider while they visualize themselves as "taking the leash off" to allow beauty to trump all those ideals that are actually being dumped along with the death of a good relationship. But just like other movies that demonstrate the fallibility of mankind regarding the temptation of beauty, at the risk of losing all ideals we

aspire for ourselves and our children, we are brought to bear the same emotions and attractions that are difficult to withstand. Jean Seberg in "Lilith", Emmanuelle Seigner in "Bitter Moon", Julia Roberts in "Pretty Woman", etc provide worthy examples. "Match Point" also demonstrated how a poor guy who is lucky enough to marry a fairly good looking very educated woman from a very wealthy family is charmed by beauty enough to leave his wife and lose everything. "A Secret" ranks up there with those movies that force you to grapple with lustful and selfish feelings felt by Maxime. Perhaps such movies should be included in a behavioral modification course for family therapy.

But this movie shows little poetic justice for Maxime as he only suffers guilt from his irresponsibility with his dog and not from his excessive lust for Tania. In the end, he is unable to associate his inconsolable dog death feelings with the fact that he set in motion the loss of his family during precarious wartime conditions. Some people have no guilt nor insight, like Maxime. Many of the rest of us are fighting the magic of beauty and should know better. Chazz

very good

[dbborroughs · 8/10 · 11 November 2008]

The story of a French family and what they did during the war. The story of love, lust, and being Jewish in the wake of the Nazis and the years that followed. This film I thought might give me a little trouble, I did not expect to have the ending have me weeping, especially when the early part of the film seemed to be going in clichéd fashion. Told in color flashback with modern day black and white intrusions this is the story of a son trying to find out what happened with his parents in the war. I want very much to discuss what actually happens, actually I'm dying to discuss the film with someone who's seen it, but the power in the film is watching how the people act and react and then finding out what the title is really all about. If I had known what the deal was going in I doubt very much it would have affected me the way it did. As I said the early part of the film seems to be laying out a typical story of life during war time for those on the Nazi hit list. I was pretty sure which way it was going to go so I was kind of half paying attention. And then some things began to happen, and a very loud "oh no" came from my lips. And then I suddenly realized that what I was seeing was not what I thought I was seeing. Suddenly I was paying close attention to what I was watching... and then the final bit of sound and film said so much I found myself crying, not uncontrolled sobs but flowing tears as I was moved by what had just happened. Its not a great film, but it is a very good one. Its a story of the sort that has not really been told before.Its a story that puts real people back into the tale of the holocaust, something that hasn't happened in a long time. (frankly we've gotten lost in the ideas when we tell the story and we've forgotten the people which I think is one of the reasons more and more people doubt this really happened). Worth a look at some point.

This is a story about family & one extended family in particular.

[jaybob · 10/10 · 19 March 2009]

Claude Miller wrote & directed this excellent drama about a family in France From the 1930's to more recent times.

It is based on Philippe Grimbert biographical novel about his family & the decisions some members had to make during the war in order to survive.

Some say it is a holocaust tale, They do mention & we see fleeting images of that tragic event. This is a sometimes funny, sometimes sad & also tragic as well. ALL these elements are part of life, & we have them all in this 100 minute movie. It is done in a flashback style using various color patterns(including black & white, to cover the period depicted. It can be a bit confusing BUT when you pay close attention everything becomes clear.

This is also about wonderful people,the sort of persons we all would like to have known, we may very well know some people like those portrayed in this fine film.

Since this is a French film,most of the cast may not be known to us,

They ALL do an excellent job. Everything in this film is very well done.

It was released in the US in Nov. 2008 & played till early March 2009. BUT only in a very small handful of theatres.

This is the type of film that should have played in many theatres all over. It is that good a drama.

I feel it would appeal to all types of families.

Rent this, you will not be sorry, You may even want to purchase it.

Ratings; **** (out of 4) 97 points (out of 100) IMDb 10 (out of 10)

Slow moving; not altogether convincing

[bob998 · 22 August 2011]

Claude Miller is a director I have been much interested in in the past, and the sufferings of those targeted by Nazis during the war can't fail to affect me, but this film dealing with a Jewish family before, during and after the war somehow does not grip me as it should. I can't fault the actors, they are all good, and Cécile de France is inspired, but the endless flashbacks and flash-forwards tried my patience greatly. When I have to ask myself who this character is who is hurling angry words at another character, I lose patience with the story. Some pruning of plot and characters would have benefited the film.

Miller also made L'Accompagnatrice, again a war story, which suffered from many of the same faults. I think he is best at contemporary stories like Betty Fisher et autres histoires and Garde à vue, when he can work with the actors without having to recreate an historical context.

Intimate World War II era French family drama

[bandw · 9/10 · 25 December 2016]

This is the story of a French Jewish family that spans the years from the mid-1930s to the mid-1980s. The opening scenes, taking place in 1955, introduce us to two of the principal characters, Francois at age 7 and his mother Tania. Francois is seen as shy, skinny, and nonathletic, which is a contrast with his mother's being, strong, beautiful and an accomplished swimmer. Soon the scene shifts to 1985 where Francois is dealing with a shy son of his own. There is an unexpectedly touching scene where Francois' son tenderly grasps his father's arm while seated next to him at a table. The 1985 scenes are filmed in black and white and that helps in keeping the time frames straight, since there are many time shifts. In movies that jump around in time I always wonder what the effect would have been to present the story in a linear way. But, since we are kept in the dark about the secret referenced in the title, the plot device of jumping back and forth in time is a logical plot device and it required my attention.

In 1955 we are introduced to Francois' father Maxime and Louise (a close family friend). Maxime is a handsome, athletic guy and that advances the theme of Francois' being mismatched in physical ability to Maxime and Tania. Francois feels that he is a disappointment to his dad. As portrayed, Maxime was in fact disappointed with Francois; a big reason why is revealed in the flashbacks to the 1930s.

Early on in the 1930s Maxime is seen wanting to deny his Jewishness. It was not clear to me if he could see what was coming down the pike with the Nazis or whether his denial was coming from some more philosophical, intellectual, or intuitive basis. In one voice-over Francois comments, "Playing sports made dad hope he could erase his origins." In any case, how the characters relate to their Jewishness is at the very heart of the story.

There is no end of stories that have come out of the Second World War, even some sixty years later. This movie is one of the better ones that concentrates on a single family's experiences rather than staging big battle scenes. The movie is based on the book, "Memory: A Novel," by Philippe Grimbert; we are told at the beginning that the story and its main characters are based on true events. I found the movie more engaging knowing that.

The acting by all concerned is first rate, as is the filming. The unobtrusive score by Zbigniew Preisner is effective.

I found the time sequencing, together with the large number of characters, made a first viewing challenging, particularly with having to read the English subtitles. A second viewing was rewarding.